#oneaday Day 548: The noodle chronicles

One of my favourite things about Paul Gannon and Eli Silverman's hilarious Cheap Show podcast is Eli's obsession with noodles, and Paul's performative weariness with this obsession. The result is that, on a semi-regular basis, the pair provide some reviews of a wide variety of different noodle products, and these have helped me — and doubtless many others — to discover things so far beyond the humdrum Pot Noodle that you wouldn't believe. It's a wild and wonderful world out there, so I thought today I'd share some personal favourites.

Samyang "Buldak" noodles

Image via ubuy, who are doing free chopsticks with this bundle! Not a sponsor.

These are the famous Korean "fire noodles" that were probably some stupid TikTok trend a while back. They're a stir fry-type noodle, which means you boil the noodles without adding any seasoning, then drain most of the water and add sauce and a sachet of goop before "frying" (actually just stirring around in the pan a bit for about 30 seconds while the heat is still on) and serving immediately. The result is a generous portion of glossy, medium thickness noodles, an angry red in colour thanks to the notoriously hot sauce, with no "soup".

These noodles come in a variety of different flavours. All of them claim to be "HOT chicken flavour", plus something else in the case of anything other than the regular ones in the black packaging. Don't be too concerned with that, though; a bit of investigating revealed that the "Buldak" part of their name is a reference to a Korean street food dish that involves chicken served with incredibly hot sauce, and the sauce is based on… well, the sauce, rather than the chickeny bit.

I've tried a few different flavours of these. The basic black ones are nice enough, so long as you can handle the heat, but my favourite remains the first one I tried: the "curry" flavour. Sadly, this particular flavour appears to have been discontinued, which is immensely disappointing, but the "Spicy Seasoned Chicken" flavour was also very nice, and a tad milder than the regular black ones. I have not, to date, tried the "2X spicy" ones that come in a red package, but apparently these are so spicy they are banned in Denmark. I don't know if that's actually true or not, but given that the regular ones will present quite a challenge for the uninitiated, I suspect a "2X" version will blow most people's heads off, and I've heard rumours of a "4X" variant, though I'm yet to see those anywhere.

On the milder end of the spectrum there are flavours such as "Cheese" and "Carbonara", both of which come with some cheese powder to mix in along with the spicy sauce. These were… okay, but I didn't love them. The Carbonara seems to be a favourite of a lot of people, but I didn't personally rate it that highly. The cheese one also absolutely honks while you are preparing it, leading my wife to brand them "Feet Noodles" and prohibit me from cooking them any time she was in the house for a good few months. She eventually relented because she was fed up of seeing them in the cupboard.

I also tried a habanero and lime flavour variant. These are my least favourite of the range to date, as the lime flavour is quite artificial. They weren't unpleasant, but I wouldn't choose to have them again when other flavours are so much nicer. From the currently available range at the time of writing, I recommend the Spicy Seasoned Chicken ones above all the others.

Anyway, whether or not you will like these noodles is entirely dependent on whether you can handle the spice — and, perhaps more relevantly, whether you enjoy the spice. My wife can handle a spicy dish, for example, but she doesn't enjoy anything over a certain heat threshold, and as such these noodles were not to her taste. Although the flavoured variants are noticeably milder than the regular black version, they're still pretty danged hot, so you better be ready for that.

If you are on board with the spice, however, an enjoyable noodle experience awaits. The sauce goes glossy and sticky with barely any provocation, lending a nice sweetness to the overall dish, and most come with a little sachet of miscellaneous dried bits to add a bit of texture. You can, of course, also customise these as you see fit; I've never actually done this, but I can imagine dumping a fried egg on top would be rather lovely.

A conditional recommend for these, then.

MAMA Shrimp Creamy Tom Yum Noodles

MAMA noodles provide a complete contrast to what we've just described. These come in a somewhat smaller package and thus provide a slightly smaller portion, but they make up for this by being soup-style noodles. For the noodle newcomer, this means that you add the various seasonings to boiling water when you're cooking the noodles, and this means you infuse the noodles with flavour and have a delicious soupy broth to enjoy both with and after you have consumed all the noodles.

MAMA do several flavours of noodles, all of which that I've tried are very nice indeed, and curiously they have two separate "Tom Yum" versions — one comes in a silver packet, and the other comes in a shiny orange packet. We're concerned with the shiny orange version today, whose sole distinguishing feature is that it is, supposedly "creamy Tom Yum" as opposed to just "Tom Yum", but the silver variant is nice, too. I think the orange one has the edge, though.

These noodles come with a sachet of powder and a sachet of goopy paste. As everyone knows, the best noodles have at least two pouches of Stuff with them, and this is certainly true for MAMA noodles, because they are delicious and flavourful. The creamy Tom Yum flavour is ostensibly "shrimp" flavour, but its more of a hot and sour, vaguely Thai curry-esque flavour with hints of lemongrass and a thoroughly pleasing richness to it that combines sweetness, sourness and saltiness together in each mouthful.

My top tip for these is to ensure that you put enough water in the pot for there to be some nice, vibrantly coloured soup along with the noodles. When cooking noodles, it's very easy to accidentally boil off all the water, and with noodles of this type, that means the majority of the flavour goes with it! Give them about 300-350ml of water, boil it, immediately bung in the noodles and flavourings, then serve after just 3 minutes of simmering. The result is delicious, and comes highly recommended for those who enjoy Asian flavours.

We discovered a while back that one of the side streets in the town centre now plays host to a wealth of "Asian supermarkets", and this is a good source for trying new varieties of noodles. I will be trying plenty more in the near future, and will do my best to report on my adventures as and when they occur. Until then, happy noodling — and if I catch you settling for the dirty pond water that is "Naked" or "Kabuto" noodles, we are going to have words. Words that conclude with me boiling up a big pot of MAMA Tom Yum for you.

Want to read my thoughts on various video games, visual novels and other popular culture things? Stop by MoeGamer.net, my site for all things fun where I am generally a lot more cheerful. And if you fancy watching some vids on classic games, drop by my YouTube channel.

If you want this nonsense in your inbox every day, please feel free to subscribe via email. Your email address won't be used for anything else.

#oneaday Day 547: School books

I've been thinking about school again. I do that a lot for some reason. Nostalgia for happier days in the past, perhaps. A melancholy reflection on a failed career. Or an earnest desire to go back. It doesn't really matter. I do it a lot, regardless.

One of the things that my brain has decided to fixate on today is the concept of "school books" — specifically, exercise books. I don't know why, but I really liked having a book for each subject's work.

Obviously, from a practical, logistical perspective, it makes sense to have one book per subject, particularly in secondary school, because pupils tend to have different teachers for different subjects. But it also makes sense in primary school to a certain degree, as it allows the teacher to clearly demarcate different subjects' work — which is taught at different times in the week — and for the pupils to easily compartmentalise the various things they've been learning.

I don't know. There was something inherently pleasing about every subject having its own colour, and I bet a lot of schools around the country used a similar colour scheme. We had red for English Language, green for English Literature, grey for Maths, orange for Science, blue for Languages, a different green for the subjects grouped under "Humanities" at our school (Geography, History, R.E.), and your Journal would be a different colour according to what year you were in.

That Journal was a handy little thing, too. It was essentially a weekly planner where we could record any homework we got from our subjects and the date it was due; it was then, of course, up to us to check it regularly and ensure we actually did that homework. This was before any sort of handheld electronic devices with reminders on them — pre-"smart" mobile phones didn't become particularly widespread among me and my peers until we were into sixth form. It was a good and healthy thing to do, I think; it helped teach us matters of personal responsibility — and also occasional bullshitting on the inevitable occasions when we had forgotten to check it properly.

The Journal was treated like some sort of holy book, though. Every single week, we had to get it signed by our parents to prove that they had seen we had been recording our homework, and every week, our form tutor had to sign it to confirm that our parents had signed it. A space on each week's spread was also set aside for any communications between our form tutor and parents — for more serious infractions, of course, you got a Letter Home from the school office, but for minor things (and not necessarily problems!) there was this space in the Journal.

Heaven help you if you doodled anywhere on your Journal, though. Defacing it in any way was an immediate ticket to having to buy — yes, buy — a new one. As you might expect, the end of term rolling around was an immediate signal to many of us to immediately deface the crap out of the Journal for the term just gone. These defaced Journals became companions to "The Rough Book" among me and my friends — there was something about the neatly laid out tables in the Journal that made it ripe for customising with ridiculous doodles. My favourites were ones where we absolutely covered the page with tiny stick figures, all standing on the various lines of the table, flinging themselves off the edge and getting up to no good. I kind of wish I still had some of those.

It was the same for your subject exercise books, of course. Some teachers insisted that, as our inaugural piece of homework for a new term, we should cover our exercise book as a means of discouraging and/or preventing any doodling on the cover. Most people went the "wrapping paper" route, but there was a fun degree of self-expression among us all, and there was always some posh git who would laminate the cover of their book at their Dad's office or whatever.

I realise, of course, that the relative strictness with which we were taught to treat our school equipment can be looked on, from some perspectives, as being stifling to creativity and borderline authoritarian. School in general has always been designed as a means of, among other things, socialising us into becoming "good citizens" — and part of that, at least when I was at school, involved treating things with respect — whether they were the things that had been given to you by the school, the things you had brought in from home, or the things your peers were using.

It didn't always happen, of course, but there was a certain degree of pride that pretty much everyone had in their school possessions. Outside of covering books, one of the best ways to express one's individuality was through the stationery you brought to school — and the pencil case in which you kept that stationery. Some folks had cool, branded, zippered pencil cases; others had little tins. I remember my proudest pencil case at school was a Nintendo-branded tin with Super Mario Bros. pixel art on the front; it was also one of my least practical pencil cases due to its size, but I loved it nonetheless.

Anyway, you'd think I'd have a point about all this but I really don't. Something just got me thinking about the colour of school books, so that's what I've talked about today. Hey! They can't all be winners. Or perhaps you found this absolutely fascinating, in which case I am happy to have served.

Either way, at 20 past midnight I think it's probably time to go to bed.

If you want this nonsense in your inbox every day, please feel free to subscribe via email. Your email address won't be used for anything else.

#oneaday Day 546: Why are we still arguing over "games as art"?

Back in April of 2010, the first time around on this #oneaday malarkey, I wrote a post responding to the late Roger Ebert's ill-advised argument that "video games can never be art".

Today, on the 5th of December 2025, some 5,710 days later (or "over 15 years" if you want to be a bit more normal about it), we are, apparently, still having this argument. Roger Ebert is, of course, dead, so this time around it has come from someone else: Ian Bogost, a professor at Washington University, St. Louis and hilariously forever doomed to be "most known for the game Cow Clicker" so far as the broader Internet is concerned.

A bit of context if you've not come across this chap before: Cow Clicker was designed as a satirical take on the rise of "social games", as they were known when they first started appearing on Facebook. You know the sort of thing: wait for timer to expire, click on thing, get stuff. Pay up if you want to get stuff more quickly. Marvel at the meaninglessness of existence.

Cow Clicker was good satire! It made some solid points about the way social games abused not only their players, but the broader community surrounding those players. Anyone who lived through Facebook in the 2010s will almost certainly remember being spammed with "invitations" to "help" on someone's "farm" or similar, because although it was patently obvious to anyone who had ever played a video game before that social games were absolute dog eggs, they introduced a lot of people who had never touched video games before to the idea of playing games on their computer or mobile phone. And, as a result, they are indirectly responsible for those tedious shitheads who argue that Candy Crush Saga is relevant to modern gaming rather than yet another abusive, predatory free-to-play game.

Anyway, I hadn't seen Bogost around for a while, but I'd always thought that he had vaguely… sensible ideas. Today he came out with these humdingers — relating to, of course, HORSES, the hot topic du jour (as you will know if you have read my last two posts and my piece on the game over on MoeGamer):

(Bluesky screenshot)
‪Ian Bogost‬
‪@ibogost.com‬

I’m going to get in trouble for this, but fuck it.

I’ve been at this a long time. Games culture wants the spoils of cultural sophistication without doing the work. It wants a guarantee that the intention to make work guarantees not just a living but a thriving one. It is a medium for children.

(Quoting the following post:)
‪Aftermath‬
‪@aftermath.site‬

Despite the controversy, Horses is only shocking if you're unfamiliar with the history movies, theater, literature, or basically any art form that does not have stats.

(Bluesky screenshot)
Ian Bogost
‪@ibogost.com‬

The interesting, sophisticated thing about games is not whether they can tell stories as well as books or movies (they can’t) or float shocking themes as well as fine art (honestly, who cares).

It’s the manipulation of systems, the play of contingency, the brokenness of machines.

(Bluesky screenshot)
Ian Bogost
‪@ibogost.com‬

Q-Up and Candy Crush, say, are more serious works of game than Horses (which seems fine and even innocuous!) or whatever embarrassing anime RPG trash is on Steam or Nintendo EShop.

There are some truly amazing bad takes in this mini-thread, but his argument appears to stem from "I am older than you, therefore my opinions are the correct ones." At least he correctly assumed that he would "get in trouble for this".

He falls into the usual traps of assuming that books and movies are inherently superior forms of media because they have been around longer and are thus more refined, but this exceedingly shallow viewpoint fails to accommodate the existence of books and movies that are unashamed to be absolute pulp fodder, trash, blockbuster nonsense or whatever other mild pejoratives you might care to fling at them. Not only that, but gaming is a medium that has grown much quicker than both books and movies, at least partly because it was able to draw on artists' experiences in developing those mediums, and adapting the things that work into the interactive space.

Now, one area where I do kind of sort of align with Bogost is where he notes that games are "the manipulation of systems, the play of contingency, the brokenness of machines". However, where I drift apart from him is his seeming assumption that that is all there is to gaming.

Games can be about the manipulation of systems, the play of contingency and the brokenness of machines. There are some truly compelling games that focus exclusively on those things — and yes, there are plenty of those that I would well and truly describe as exhibiting their own form of artistry. There is an elegance to a well-designed, well-balanced game — it keeps you playing; it keeps you invested; it plays on your mind even when you're not directly engaging with it, in much the same way as a great work of art that you, personally, found particularly impactful "stays with you" long after you were in its physical presence.

This side of things is something that I feel the more "artsy" side of game criticism — and the more artsy side of gaming enthusiasts, for that matter — could do well to study more. As someone with an appreciation for both narrative-centric and mechanics-focused games, it is inordinately frustrating to see those who prefer narrative experiences completely dismiss the artistry of mechanics-centric games. At the same time, it is also frustrating when people who are primarily appreciators of mechanics will completely discount the artistry of a good story.

You see, games aren't one or the other! They can be both, or they can be one of those things — or they can probably be neither of them if you're determined enough. But in most cases these days, there's a little of column A and a little of column B in there — and both of those aspects have been developing rapidly as the medium and technology have evolved, to such a degree that it is an astonishingly galaxy-brained take to say that "games cannot tell stories as well as books and movies" as a blanket statement.

HORSES is an interesting one because it's not a very "good" video game in terms of its mechanical aspect, and there are arguments to be made that its narrative aspects aren't anything particularly out of the ordinary either. I enjoyed my time with it well enough — I found it compelling enough to play through in a single sitting — but I also found myself wondering if anyone would remember it a year from now, particularly if the whole situation with it being "banned" from various platforms hadn't happened. There are plenty of artsy-fartsy walking simulators out there, and some have done their job better than others; it's actually a surprisingly challenging genre of game to get "right", and opinions vary wildly on exactly what getting it "right" really means.

But that's art! Art provokes discussion and debate. It sometimes makes people feel uncomfortable. It sometimes carries deep meaning for people. It resonates with some people more than others, and for different reasons even among those who all found it "meaningful" to a similar degree.

I'm truly astonished that we're still in a situation where games are having to justify their existence as an incredibly creative, artistic medium in 2025. Yes, there's garbage out there — although let's not even get into the casual racism of Bogost's "embarrassing anime RPG trash" statement right now, which is another matter entirely — but there are garbage books, movies and paintings out there, too. To put "established" forms of media on some sort of unassailable pedestal purely because they've been around longer and because the Big Scary Professor At Washington U Says So is just absurd. Because if video games as a medium are not "established" by this point… exactly when is the cutoff point for them to be taken the slightest bit seriously?

There are certain people out there who seem weirdly desperate for video games to forever be regarded as toys for little children — particularly little boys. We are long past that. And I would expect someone like Bogost to know better by this point.

If you want this nonsense in your inbox every day, please feel free to subscribe via email. Your email address won't be used for anything else.

#oneaday Day 545: Couldn't drag me away

I played HORSES this evening. I wrote about it in depth over on MoeGamer, so go read that if you want to find out a bit more about it. Short version: it was a decent Art Game, I'm not sure it'll be remembered in a couple of years' time, and the controversy surrounding it is, frankly, laughable.

That side of things is worth pondering a moment, because it's been an absolutely absurd game of telephone that has culminated in some people — including professional games journalists! — coming out absolutely convinced that the game was justified in being banned because at one point during its development it had something they considered to be child sexual abuse material.

For context, this is the scene as it ended up in the final game. The only change is that the woman atop the horse-masked individual is now in her twenties rather than being fourteen.

If you think that scene is in any way sexual, I really don't know what to tell you. There's nothing the slightest bit titillating about the whole scene, and for the majority of it, it looks like this:

That's "you" on the left, and the girl on the right is the daughter of a wealthy businessman considering purchasing one of the "horses" in the game (actually enslaved, naked humans) — during this scene even the dialogue isn't remotely sexual; instead, the woman delivers a lengthy diatribe about how people should know their place in society, how those with morals perceived to be "loose" tend to have "dangerous" ideas, and how those who live their lives "recklessly and indulgently" end up getting what they deserve.

HORSES is provocative — deliberately so — but honestly, having played through the whole thing this evening, it is so laughably tame compared to some other video games out there that the entire situation just feels bizarre. There are people thumping tables out there arguing that this game deserved to be banned while having absolutely zero knowledge of what the whole thing is actually about, but for once it seems like the majority opinion — even among games journalists — is that this game doesn't deserve the treatment it's gotten.

And that treatment is worth talking about. As Chris Person notes in his excellent piece on the game over on Aftermath, HORSES encountering such difficulty with getting a widespread release is a troubling sight for the industry. "If this is what's considered the limit for which games can and cannot be sold on mass marketplaces," he writes, "then we're all in trouble, and everyone involved in that decision should be thoroughly embarrassed."

The problem is that Valve holds a near-monopoly on the digital PC games market with their Steam platform, and thus a game from a small, independent team with a limited budget not being able to release their game their is very bad news for that team and their game. HORSES has probably sidestepped this particular issue thanks to the widespread press coverage it has had, but it's a solid case study in why the present situation is a bit of a problem.

"Well, just release it elsewhere!" some of you might say. And sure: you can buy the game on GOG.com and Humble. But for most PC gamers, neither of those storefronts are the first place they look to get new games. For most PC gamers, PC gaming begins and ends with Steam — particularly if they do their gaming on a device like a Steam Deck, which, as the name suggests, obviously prioritises Steam as its main source of material.

As I say: HORSES itself is probably going to be all right after all the coverage it's gotten. But will the next game to suffer this situation be as lucky? Probably not.

And besides, part of the reason the HORSES situation specifically is so absurd is the fact that there is much worse stuff already on Steam with zero issues. Not only do reasonably big-name recent releases like Silent Hill f feature more explicit, disturbing content than HORSES does, but you also have shovelware shit like the Sex With Hitler (yes, really) series happily existing with zero issue. I'm sure I don't need to tell you that this is a rather major problem with consistency and transparency.

Transparency is, honestly, probably the biggest problem with all this. HORSES' developer Santa Ragione did their best to try and work with Valve on ensuring that it was compliant with all appropriate platform policies, and when its initial version was rejected, they changed everything that could have been remotely considered to be a bit dodgy — even if, as outlined above, it almost certainly wasn't dodgy. But they were given no chance to appeal, no second chance — it was just gone from the platform, and with it a significant opportunity at organic discovery.

The Epic Games Store situation is even more bizarre. It seems like Epic themselves re-submitted the game to IARC, an international body that issues local content certifications for digital games, and that caused the game to end up with an "Adults Only" rating from the ESRB, which isn't allowed on Epic (except for blockchain and NFT-based games, because Tim Sweeney is a cunt). This is unusual because it's not Epic's place to submit games to IARC or any ratings bodies — it's the responsibility of developers and publishers, and a storefront going out of their way to re-submit something that had already attained a rating is unheard of, and probably not actually allowed.

Anyway, it's all a shitshow, and with this coming amid payment processors continuing to cut off adult content creators and sex workers from their sources of online income, it's just generally a pretty dark, shitty time for various forms of self-expression.

I enjoyed my time with HORSES. I wasn't blown away, but I enjoyed it. It's definitely worth four quid and a couple of hours of your time if you're on board with narrative-centric games that have minimal mechanics. I wonder if it will be remembered in a few years for anything other than this whole situation with the platform holders.

If you want this nonsense in your inbox every day, please feel free to subscribe via email. Your email address won't be used for anything else.

#oneaday Day 544: Wild HORSES

The latest casualty in the ongoing wave of New Puritanism which appears to be spearheaded by Visa and Mastercard is a short, arty game known as HORSES. Thus far, it has been banned from release on Steam and withdrawn from sale on the Epic Games Store and Humble's store. (Edit: apparently Humble have put it back now.) At the time of writing, you can buy it from GOG.com. It's £3.99 and is apparently 2-3 hours long. If you're in the mood for something arty, unsettling and apparently the worst thing that has ever happened to society so far as payment processors are concerned, go grab it while you still can. I'm certainly intending to after this.

This whole ongoing situation has been really disappointing to see, because, as I say, it's a real wave of Neo-Puritanism that has been affecting all sorts of different online storefronts, types of media and subject matter. And, as people working in the more "adult" end of things have been yelling for a long time at this point, once these things start happening to material that you, personally, might find distasteful, it's not long before things that you, personally, are completely okay with start getting affected. Which is what has happened here.

The frustrating thing about this is that no-one wielding any of the power in this is ever honest about things. Visa and Mastercard won't say "no, we're not letting people buy porn". Valve won't say "this specific scene is why you can't put your game on Steam". Epic seemingly even went so far as to overrule the developer's content rating submission to ensure that it couldn't be sold on their storefront. And let's not even get into why it's ridiculous that the ESRB (or equivalent) "Adults Only" rating should preclude adults from being able to purchase material on an online storefront.

For quite some time, it looked like we were making some real progress in that area. The European games rating board, PEGI, allows explicit sexual content under its 18 rating now — there are even Nintendo Switch games that have explicit nudity and sexual content, though the fully "uncensored" versions tend to be physical exclusives. And yet, probably not coincidentally alongside the worst United States politics have been for many, many years, we are seeing legitimate businesses being forced to sit around twiddling their thumbs, potentially not being able to pay the bills, because someone, somewhere got a stiffy and got scared because it had never happened before.

It's ridiculous to see the amount of misinformation flying around, too. In the case of HORSES, the developer admitted that there was, at one point, a scene in the game that featured a 14 year old girl riding on the shoulders of a naked woman clad in a horse mask — and to those inexplicably defending the decisions of Valve, Epic and Humble, this is the same as illegal child sexual abuse material. Never mind the fact that the scene involved nudity but was not sexual — the two things are different! — or that the scene ended up being changed to involve a young woman in her twenties because the developers thought that fitted the tone of the scene better. No! To these people, HORSES is, was and always will be kiddie porn and thus the big, powerful corporations — step on me, Daddy, and I will lick your boots — are absolutely right to banhammer it so hard it leaves a crater right down to the Earth's core.

It's really discouraging to see the world continuing to find new and exciting ways to suck more. But I am glad that people — press and public alike — appear to be rallying behind the HORSES developers, and that people who might have previously gone "ew, porn is icky" are starting to see why sex workers and those who work in various forms of adult media are often considered to be the proverbial canary in the coal mine when it comes to matters of censorship.

I'm off to buy a copy of HORSES now. If this is the world's cleverest marketing campaign, I salute the people responsible. But somehow I think it's just the world reminding us that we're living through a really shitty age right now.

If you want this nonsense in your inbox every day, please feel free to subscribe via email. Your email address won't be used for anything else.

#oneaday Day 543: Tabbed browsing

I like browser tabs. I think they were a good invention, and a good addition to modern user interfaces in general — although not universally, as some application and website designers seem to think.

I find it convenient to be able to switch back and forth between things I might need to keep looking at. But I quite regularly come into contact with opinions that make me feel like I'm not using them in the same way as a lot of other people on the Internet.

For example, these are my tabs that are open right now:

Yes, that's all of them.

And yet just a few minutes before I started writing this entry, I saw this Bluesky post from Aidan Moher, one half of the delightful FunFactor Podcast that I've extolled the virtues of previously on this site. (Twice, in fact.) The fact the post is from Aidan isn't particularly relevant to what I'm talking about here. I just thought I'd take the opportunity to plug the excellent podcast he's involved in.

What Aidan's talking about here is by no means unusual, but it is completely alien to me. I have never left a browser tab open longer than 24 hours, and even then it's only to remember something that I will need in the very immediate future; in most cases I will use either a bookmark or a note in Google Keep instead and close a tab when I'm not using it.

This is the bit where I, apparently, differ from the "norm": when I'm done with the contents of a tab, I close it. Why would I leave it open if I no longer need that information right now?

These are my tabs right now, incidentally:

A few more, due to me checking the links on things that I've mentioned above, but all still mostly relevant to what I'm doing right now. In fact, hold on.

There. I don't need my email right now, so I closed it. See how easy that is? In fact, you know what?

Fuck yeah. Two tabs. One window. I probably don't even need Bluesky right this moment. In fact, yeah. Let's remove all distractions.

Hoo boy. I bet some of you are getting the collywobbles right now. How can this human being function with only one tab open? Quite easily, as it happens! The Thing I Am Doing Right Now is Writing A Blog Post, so that's all I need to have open. If I needed to research something specific while I was writing, I would have a tab open for it (or perhaps a separate window so I could see the research materials side-by-side with my post while I was writing it) — but since I don't, I don't have anything else open.

I hear horror stories about people having literally thousands of tabs open at once, and all I think when I hear that is… how the hell did you get yourself into that situation? This, for me, is the threshold of when it is Time To Close The Entire Browser And Start Again:

You know, the point where if you don't know a site's favicon, you're never going to find the right tab again? (It probably says something that I actually found it very difficult to find enough websites to open that many tabs without resorting to stuff like PornHub and Wikipedia.) Honestly even this is uncomfortable:

Basically I reach that right margin — the point where tabs start to contract and become less useful — and I find myself contemplating existence. Once you get to this point — which is everything on my Bookmarks bar, incidentally — I feel like you really start questioning whether you can feel God's light any more:

Like… help me out here. How is that useful? This isn't even a lot of tabs before it becomes a nigh-unusable mess of icons, and there are people out there using hundreds or even thousands of tabs at once? How do you function? How do you sleep at night?

There, that's better. Sorry, was hyperventilating a bit.

But seriously, I don't understand this peculiar relationship some people seem to have with tabs. Are you the sort of person who reads a magazine or a book and then just leaves it lying around randomly in your house, open on the page you last read? Do you open all your emails in individual windows and then leave them all open? Do you have over a hundred active WhatsApp messaging groups?

I ask these questions because I know there are people who do those things. And yet I, as someone who can often be disorganised and messy, is definitely autistic and quite possibly has ADHD tendencies (though those are undiagnosed, so I don't wish to concretely label myself in that regard) feel physically uncomfortable if more than about five tabs are open at once — and the concept of leaving some tabs open for a week or more is completely alien to me.

Browser tabs might have been a mistake for some people, apparently. But I feel like I'm using them "correctly", if such a concept exists. Put your shit away when you're done with it. It's very easy to do that in the digital realm. Just click that little cross button!

And mobile browsers who think I might want "tab groups"? I do not want "tab groups". Please stop adding new tabs to "tab groups" seemingly at random based on some indeterminate (and possibly inconsistent) context clues that I am not privy to. Just follow the basic rules of the Old Web: open a new tab if you're taking me off the website I'm on; just change the page if you're taking me to a different page on the same website.

Am I the only one who remembers that?

If you want this nonsense in your inbox every day, please feel free to subscribe via email. Your email address won't be used for anything else.

#oneaday Day 542: Vrr vrr vrr

I didn't buy much in the Black Friday sales this year. In fact, I only bought one "thing" and one Steam game (Mini Motorways, which is lovely).

The "thing" I bought is an under-desk elliptical trainer thing, ostensibly for "seniors", but also, I figured, eminently suitable for someone like me who needs to get some exercise, but has difficulty with the whole "motivating oneself to go outside the house" thing for various reasons.

Also I wanted something that would allow me to give my legs in particular a bit of gentle exercise, and that I could use while doing other things, and that wouldn't be discouragingly difficult to use for someone as unfit as I am.

I forget exactly how I ended up looking at these things. I do know that the first product I saw was a vibrating foot massager thing that supposedly "mimicked the motion of walking", but just looked hilarious to see people using in the promotional videos. From there, it recommended me these under-desk elliptical doodads, and from there I picked one that 1) had good reviews and 2) wasn't obscenely expensive, and now here we are, with me the proud owner of a Lubbygim [sic] Under Desk Elliptical Machine Quiet Motorized Leg Exerciser with Smart Remote, 12-Speed Manual Programs Auto/3 Auto Programs LCD Display & Bidirectional Motion for Home/Office.

Yes, as that absurd product name will probably tell you, I was shopping on Amazon. As loathe as I am to further line the pockets of billionaires and contribute to the exploitation of workers, they had something I was looking for, offered it at a good price and got it to me in good time. So /shrug, I guess.

And the thing seems pretty good! Its supposedly "non-slip" feet do, in fact, slip, so I have paired it with a non-slip mat (which also slips, but less than the feet did) and installed it under my working desk, so now I can make use of it during the working day, on my lunch break and any time I'm just sitting in my study doing things. The way I have it set up makes it ideal for using while watching a long YouTube video or TV programme.

It's a fairly no-frills device. As the ridiculous product name suggests, it has a fully manual mode where you can control the speed and direction of the pedals, and also three automatic modes that vary the speed and direction over the course of a half-hour programme. I'm not entirely sure if the three different programmes are supposed to be varying degrees of "difficulty" or intensity, but I'm assuming they are; I did a "programme 3" earlier and it seemed to spend a lot more time at the higher speeds than the rather gentle "programme 1".

What I like about it is that it's easy to just stick on and let your legs do the walking while you forget about it. This, to me, is the optimal way to exercise; the absolute worst thing you can do while attempting to get some exercise is to watch the clock, because that's what makes a ten-minute session on a treadmill feel like you're hiking up Mount Everest. With this thing being the way it is, though, today I've found it absolutely easy to put in nearly two hours of wibbling my legs around a bit in total. And that, I hope, will be beneficial in the long term.

I'm under no illusions: this thing doesn't offer an intense enough workout to really play any significant role in exercise for weight loss, but that's not why I wanted one of these. I just wanted something that would get my legs moving a bit, because I spend all day sitting working, and all night sitting entertaining myself, and frankly my legs are old and stupid enough to have started going "nope, not having that" any time I want to get up and actually do something. And I don't like that. It worries me a bit; I don't want to end up in a situation where I just can't use my legs. I'm pretty certain that it wouldn't come to that without some sort of drastic accident, but I also don't want to put myself in a position where it's even a slight possibility.

And so sticking this thing on and going vrr vrr vrr for at least half an hour every day is my way of preventing that. Hopefully, anyway. It's only been two days so far, so I'm not entirely sure I'm feeling any specific benefit just yet, but over the long term, I hope it will help me be even a little bit more active — or I'd settle for it just helping my knees hurt a little bit less.

See that? Personal growth, that is. Probably.

If you want this nonsense in your inbox every day, please feel free to subscribe via email. Your email address won't be used for anything else.

#oneaday Day 541: Back to school

I often think about my time at school and, while there were certainly elements of my experiences as a teenager I am very glad to have left behind, there's a lot I miss — to such a degree that I often find myself wondering if there is any sort of way one can get oneself into a situation, as an adult, that works similarly to school. A situation that isn't, like, prison or something.

I thrived in school — particularly secondary school. For the most part, I dealt well with the inherently predictable nature of a timetable — though I have recurring quasi-nightmares about being back at school and not having a clue what my weekly schedule is — and I didn't even mind having homework all that much. I did well in lessons, though I tended to be fairly quiet rather than the sort of person who was always the first to answer teachers' questions, and I ended up with good grades. Not perfect grades, mind, but good grades, nonetheless.

I'm not really sure what it is about the school experience — as opposed to, say, university — that I find so particularly appealing. Perhaps it's the inherent variety of things that you study, at least up until you start choosing "Options" for Years 10-11 and, if you're going on to do them, Years 12 and 13. There's definitely an element of that, because when I think back on some of my fondest memories of time at school, the visual part of the memories is very much associated with my "lower school" experience — Years 7-9.

That was the time when you study all sorts of things, with multiple subjects every day, and each and every day was packed with things to do. Sure, you didn't always like every one of those things you had to do each day — for me, Maths and P.E. were my particular bugbears — but you endured them, along with the things you actually liked, and sometimes you'd even surprise yourself with how well you ended up performing. I have zero achievements of note in P.E., but I did get an "A" in Maths at GCSE, which was pleasing.

Early secondary school is a time you get exposed to a lot of things you wouldn't have thought about studying, too. I remember being surprised how much I enjoyed language lessons — particularly German, which I liked more than French — and Science, although not a subject I had any intention of pursuing beyond a passing interest, was always full of interesting and unusual situations.

As you might expect, my biggest strengths were English and Music. In English, I relished the opportunity to write a lengthy essay about something we'd been studying — whether it was on the "language" or "literature" side of the fence — while in Music, I was often quite ambitious with my compositions, and in terms of performance I was considerably ahead of anyone else in my class thanks to the years of private piano lessons I'd had by that point.

It was nice to be good at something, and to have tangible proof that I was good at it in the form of good grades, certificates and, eventually, qualifications. I think that might be one of the things I miss the most in life as an adult — the simple knowledge and confidence that you can do something, and that someone is going to acknowledge that you are good at something, even reward you for it. It didn't have to be a big reward — I was a sucker for the "Merits" and "Commendations" we had at secondary school, and those were just little signatures on a page of our Journal and occasional certificates — but that little bit of acknowledgement that yes, there was something you were good at, and that gave you value as a human being, was pleasant.

I am not, obviously, advocating for modern employers to start implementing systems of "Merits" and "Commendations" for their employees, because I feel that most people would probably find the whole thing incredibly patronising. Interestingly, back during my brief period of time working for the shithole energy company SSE, I found myself thinking that a lot of the way the company did things was like how it was back in school — but in that situation, it was a negative thing. The difference? SSE wasn't interested in celebrating the successes of people and the things they were good at — they were, instead, obsessed with making themselves, as a company, look good, and specifically going looking for things they could reprimand their employees for.

Schools have to have a solid behavioural policy in place, of course, but I always found it pretty easy not to run afoul of it — and on the few occasions when I did, I knew it was a completely fair cop. SSE, meanwhile, would bollock you if you didn't hold the handrail when going up some stairs, for going under your desk to pick up a pen you'd dropped without wearing a "bump cap", and for not reporting the fact that you'd spilled a tiny bit of water from your cup carrying it back from the cooler to your desk — and all that absurdity meant that there was no time left to actually praise anyone for doing a good job.

So you can't just transplant elements of the school structure into a corporate environment without thinking about the things that make school good for those who thrive in that environment. I don't know what the answer is, and at this point I'm not even entirely sure what the question is any more either. I'm rambling. I'm tired. I'm a bit cold. So I think I'll leave that there and go to bed!

If you want this nonsense in your inbox every day, please feel free to subscribe via email. Your email address won't be used for anything else.

#oneaday Day 540: Actual socialisation

This evening, we had some friends over! Good Lord. Actual socialisation. We even played a board game — Betrayal at House on the Hill, if you were curious. This is a game that hasn't hit the table for a long time — hell, no games have hit the table for a long time, for a variety of reasons I won't bore you with this evening — so I was excited to be able to get some use out of it. And, as usual for this wonderful game, it offered a completely different experience to any of the previous times we've played.

For the unfamiliar, Betrayal at House on the Hill is an interesting theme-centric game that unfolds in two distinct phases. In the first, a veritable Scooby gang of adventurers decides to investigate the titular House, which is generated semi-randomly by drawing tiles and laying them out across the board. At various points, new rooms will cause the people discovering them to have to draw items, "omens" and events, and these will have various effects.

So far so conventional cooperative dungeon crawler, you might say. The big twist, as you may have surmised from the title, is that partway through your jolly little jaunt to the abandoned house, things go horribly wrong. Specifically, each time you draw "omen" cards (which typically represent spooky items you find around the house which can be used later) you roll for a "haunt", with the likelihood the "haunt" will happen increasing with every omen card drawn.

When the haunt is eventually triggered, the combination of the item drawn that triggered it and the room the triggerer was in determines which of a multitude of scenarios the game will follow from thereon. One or more players are designated as "traitors" according to the scenario, and they are then given their own, usually secret goals to accomplish. The remaining regular players then have their own goal to accomplish, also. At this point the game switches from being cooperative to competitive, with the "hero" players attempting to defeat the "traitors", thwart their schemes or whatever.

It's a really interesting game, because each scenario not only has a different story setup, it also tends to have radically different mechanics. In the probably seven or eight times I've played this game now, we've never had the same "haunt" twice, and each one has been markedly different from the last. It really is a lot of fun, and I'm glad we had the opportunity to get it out for the first time in ages this evening.

Now, I've had a drink or two so I think I will probably sleep well this evening. Remains to be seen if I feel up to making any videos tomorrow…!

If you want this nonsense in your inbox every day, please feel free to subscribe via email. Your email address won't be used for anything else.

#oneaday Day 539: Adults need 2,000 calories a day

One thing I always find difficult to get my head around is the concept that "adults need around 2,000 calories per day", as quoted on most nutritional information labels. Because there's one thing that counting calories each day makes very clear to me: it is very easy to burn through 2,000 calories or more (as a big lad, I can have a few more and still be within my "allowance" for theoretically losing weight) while barely realising it.

I had a Meal Deal the other day that calculated to well over a thousand calories. A thousand! For a thousand calories I want something better than a soggy supermarket sandwich and a bag of all-right-but-nothing-special crisps. (Okay, there was a chocolate bar and a Red Bull also. But still.)

I know the answer to this is "eat more fruit and vegetables", since both of those things are, in theory, 1) filling and 2) low in calories, comparatively speaking. But they're so boring. That's the trouble. If fruit and vegetables were more interesting, and if they didn't run the risk of going off before you have a chance to get to them, it'd be much easier to prioritise them. I suppose the answer to that is to not have things in the house that you'd rather eat than fruits and vegetables, but I tend to find that is when you start getting into the "I'm bored of everything we have in the house, I'm going to go to the shop and blow a thousand-plus calories on a Meal Deal" territory, which is counter-productive.

So what's the answer to that? Balance, probably. But it's frustrating when you, say, have what feels like an eminently modest breakfast (a bowl of cereal, say) and an unremarkable lunch (a jacket potato, for example, or a simple sandwich) and you've blown through so many calories in the process. And if you eat less, then you just end up hungry and wanting to eat more, and you overcompensate with snacks.

How the bloody hell does anyone get through a day with just 2,000 calories? More to the point, how does anyone stay slim (or at least "normal-sized") with the myriad, highly calorific temptations that are everywhere in modern life, even if you're not specifically going looking for a "treat"?

If I can figure all that out, this whole "weight loss" thing might be much easier. But unfortunately I'm not any closer to working things out just yet. Maybe it's one of those things where you just have to take it a bit at a time. Perhaps the next time we go shopping I'll try and prioritise some form of nice fruit for snacking purposes rather than other, potentially more calorific options, and then go from there. We'll see.

If you want this nonsense in your inbox every day, please feel free to subscribe via email. Your email address won't be used for anything else.